american/australian media war on citizens and sundry other topics

[Shai Gar]

here.

[Claverhouse]

Where.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

i just made this thread so that we could keep devnulls introduction thread free of a political argument that would likely go on for quite a bit. i will personally take this thread down if he doesnt post in here within the next few hours

[DevNull]

I wish they could stand up to humane questioning, but the question is really should i question them in the same way that their client nations paramilitary(cia trained for the most part) question their nations disidents? Or should i question them how they would want to be questioned?
And i read far too much chomsky to ever be a fan of either majority parties administrations over the last hundred years

actually australias disarmament was totally voluntary and not something i participated in. in fact many of the property owners i know did not hand in their rifles or semi autmatic pistols. hell i have 2 remingtons, a compound bow, a colt magnum 44 and a heckler and koch P9. oh and 2 katana's that i am fairly proficient with since i am 6th kyu bujinkan.

but to prevent this becoming a political thread i have created a thread in rants and raves where we could continue this argument of australian and american governments here: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showt...40437#post40437

it isnt really a bias because i understand that this goes on in most of the "civilised world" but america is the worlds strongest power so the fact that it goes on there is the most terrible as it puts the majority of the world in danger by misinforming its citizens and extending its empire with little opposition in its own nation.

Hey, you are right. The disarmament was, in fact, voluntary. The NRA never puts it that way in their nice magazines they send me. You learn something new every day. What is the penalty if an otherwise law-abiding subject is caught with a gun in their home?


it isnt really a bias because i understand that this goes on in most of the "civilised world" but

One of the most difficult parts of remaining a superpower, is that you are responsible for dealing with every single country on the planet to keep them all from ganging up on you in one of a myriad of ways. The political machine in power at the current time in the US is responsible for granting favors and whatnot to every single viable and/or strategically placed country in the world... even the enemy ones. The levels of maintenance is mind-boggling, nay, maddening.

For this reason, I give a pass to most bias perpatred on us small folk of the world. It is very hard to discern truth from propaganda as it is, but when you toss in the fact that a little person will probably never know the ulterior motives in any given scenario, then how can you claim that you are given biased information? That may be a little confusing as it came out of my brain and made it's way on to this post, so let me give you an example:

Bush invades Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi's and save the world from a supposed WMD crazy madman. The small man calls "propaganda!" and says that the invasion is for the oil. Oil prices never fall, in fact they rise. The small man then is forced to mutate it into a conspiracy to share the oil wealth with all of Bush's buddies, thus cutting the small man from the profits. Senator Kerry outraised George Bush in the presidential race, so that blew that theory. Now a world-domination hegemonic conspiracy on the part of the Bush administration seems to be all the rage with the small man. This fits in to your assesment that "it isnt really a bias because i understand that this goes on in most of the civilised world" Total times Bush may have lied=1. Total times that the small man tried to convince me, and was proved wrong, that they had the true answer to Bush's alleged propaganda=2. Bush sticks with his story to this day but his detractors have changed their tune more than once. Everyone involved is not being truthful when informing the masses. Great. Everyone is slinging unsubstantiated bull. This bites. What is one to do?

Easy.

Start looking at track records. Start looking at trends. The Communist Party of America is *heavily* involved in the anti-war movement. They have their own problems with staying viable nowadays, so why would they care about one military action. Why would they invest the bulk of their resources on the issue of this one war that was supposedly over some oil? That must be one hooha of an important war.

It is.

It is so important, that almost every bit of news, every squabbling point, everything you are presented with on any given day is only secondary bullcrap when compared to the real reasons and motives behind this war of which you will never see in mass media nor hear roll off the Presidents lips.

What is the motive and reason for the war? I'll post that later after I think about it some more to make sure the explanation is less rambling than this mess of a post. I am sure most people know the bulk of the reasons anyway. My whole point to this post is that you are indeed correct in that the world runs on disinformation as a rule. I am shocked that so many posters here get caught up in a lot of it. You are young and could be given a pass, but it looks like you are healthily cynical beyond your years and have been given the gift of questioning rather than emotionally lashing out. Some posts in the political forum are embarrasing to look at when you consider this is an INTP board.

[Shai Gar]

i will answer this later, because as you seem very convinced by what you just said i am going to do you the courtesy of not just giving you information off the top of my head, i shall go back to my books and websites so that when i overturn your ideas i do it in a way that you can understand as me not just doing this to be offensive.

i truly believe you have been duped, so i want to change this.

[DevNull]

i truly believe you have been duped, so i want to change this.

I am surprised that you believe I have been duped, seeing as how I did not state a belief in anything other than everyone involved in informing the masses is lying, disinforming, and propagandizing. Both sides. The few scant facts I have presented are pretty solid for all intents and purposes given that they are agreed to by both sides. For instance, you are not going to tell me that the CPUSA is for the war, are you?

I sincerely look forward to seeing what you plan to overturn.

[Shai Gar]

sorry then about the use of the word duped. i am refering to (what i believe is) your belief that the war for iraq was started and maintained in good intentions, as are other us wars

[DevNull]

In my defense, I did put quotes around the word "liberate" and I used the word "supposed" before WMD's.

I will state that I believe this war has good moral intentions, from the POV of the US anyway, of which I am a member.

I can understand why many people do not think it is moral. I cannot agree, but I understand completely.

[Serotonin]

I will state that I believe this war has good moral intentions, from the POV of the US anyway, of which I am a member.
Worth your taxes?
Definitely not worth mine as an Australian taxpayer funding the war.

[Shai Gar]

not worth my taxes either, and okay your use of the "" symbols pretty much cover everything and i am not going to rewrite 'The Fateful Triangle' for you here or 'hegemony or survival' but i do suggest you read these two books by noam chomsky. i didnt want to have to rush this one but i want to post more things that bug me

[DevNull]

Someone asked me to read Chomsky once. I quickly noticed that the book was about the tainted democracy of the US. No one bothered to tell Chomsky that we are a representative republic, not a democracy. Suffering through book-long straw man arguments are not my cup of tea.

I'll check out the gist of the books.

[Shai Gar]

heh, man chomsky is recognised even by his opposition as being the most informative political dissident in the world at the moment. he knows that america is a representative republic, but it is also a democracy.

and his arguments are not made of straw. for every statement he makes he backs it up with fact in the appendix's and he usually gives the benefit of the doubt, and uses american government sources. and not recognising the faults of your governments is the first step down the road to a very corrupt government.

[DevNull]

heh, man chomsky is recognised even by his opposition as being the most informative political dissident in the world at the moment.

I can see that you like straw man arguments. No one opposes Chomsky. He may have detractors and haters, but AFAIK, he has no formal opposition. Of course, I may be wrong, but perhaps if you named names then that would be the first step to seeing your point.


he knows that america is a representative republic, but it is also a democracy.

We are not a Democracy. If he "knows" that the United States is a representative republic, then it was deceptive to state otherwise on the cover of his book. After reading selected writings from his website, I have come to the conclusion that he is the thinking man's Moore. He takes these absolutely true facts and selectively presents them in specific scenarios to fit his agenda... Anarchy I suppose. Chomsky's superior knowledge seperates him from Moore, but he is just as childish in my eyes. I can see through his charade but I cannot argue with his facts. No one can.


and his arguments are not made of straw

An argument that is "made of straw" and a "straw man argument" are two different concepts. The latter being a real term and the former... well.. let's just say that I have never heard of an argument being made of straw nor has Google. So, I guess you are correct in saying that his arguments are not made of straw. Wicked good point! (/sarcasm)


not recognising the faults of your governments is the first step down the road to a very corrupt government.

Did you swallow a political fortune cookie or something?

Faults are relative. Before one can recognize a fault, one must weigh the action in moral judgement. I can safely say that your moral judgements are read from books. Mine are weighed in my brain. You are barking up the wrong tree here with your quest.

[Claverhouse]

No one bothered to tell Chomsky that we are a representative republic, not a democracy.
Personally, I wouldn't know, not being interested in the difference between demons and goblins: nonetheless, US presidents, commentators, cheerleaders, politicos, media-representatives, propagandists, and citizenry --- even on the internet --- have for the last couple of centuries insisted that:

a/ Democracy is the greatest thing in the universe.

b/ It is the Divine Mission of America to bring and enforce Democracy to every land on earth: with heavy munitions if needed.

c/ America is the home and chief interpreter of Ideal Democracy.



Nor do I see why anyone's personal views should enhance or detract from the truth or otherwise of their statements on a single issue.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[DevNull]

Nor do I see why anyone's personal views should enhance or detract from the truth or otherwise of their statements on a single issue.

It gets really annoying when someone has a radical agenda and you must suffer through the fact that they are trying to lead you to a conclusion through a long-winded presentation. I will restate: The truth is there. I have no problem with the truth. Chomsky's agenda does not detract from the truth, but it detracts from enjoying reading it. Take for instance, Moore's movie. It was great if you turned down the sound. You just don't see footage like that everyday. I am quite sure Chomsky's novels are packed full of truth and fact. My being does not like anyone attempting to lead me to conclusions though.

I am content to read the government stats as they were presented, rather than have a Chomsky feed them to me in a **blatantly** skewed fashion. I would rather talk to a barroom full of veterans, than to have Moore tell me what is going on in the streets of Iraq. Most importantly, I am very content to find information from an obscene amount of venues rather than to waste time on any one in particular. Chomsky had his chance with me and failed miserably. He is not a great thinker. He is an intellectual sociopath with a great talent for propagandizing with selective truth.

[Claverhouse]

I would rather talk to a barroom full of veterans, than to have Moore tell me what is going on in the streets of Iraq.
Plus perhaps the input of what Flann O'Brien might have called 'The Plain People of Iraq', who seem so less grateful when there's not a soldier standing around glaring ? [ Plus la change ]

However, the innately deceitful windbag Moore, who is incapable of making any point without trickery, is not quite in the same league as Chomsky, who at least believes in wholly free speech. Moore would lock up dissenters as quickly as Trotsky if he had the power. To radicals, having different beliefs from them is proof of innate wickedness.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Shai Gar]

noah cohen.

i am just getting close to the point where i totally disregard anything you have to say in the field of politics. no i went over that point, discussion with me in it is over. i can not stand people who insult authors without reading with an open mind what they have to say.

[DevNull]

Plus perhaps the input of what Flann O'Brien might have called 'The Plain People of Iraq', who seem so less grateful when there's not a soldier standing around glaring ? [ Plus la change ]

Sadly, I will not have much exposure to them. Going to the West Coast of my own country gives me culture shock so I cannot imagine ever going to the Middle-East. I did read "Where's Raed" back at the start of the war but I couldn't figure out if it was on the level or not. I read it with great interest but also with a healthy amount of skepticism.


However, the innately deceitful windbag Moore, who is incapable of making any point without trickery, is not quite in the same league as Chomsky, who at least believes in wholly free speech. Moore would lock up dissenters as quickly as Trotsky if he had the power. To radicals, having different beliefs from them is proof of innate wickedness.


I will have to bow to your knowledge of both Moore and Chomsky as my assessment is limited to my few experiences. I still can't help but figure that Moore is the poor man's Chomsky.... err... lazy man's Chomsky. If you really feel that I am wrong, and that Chomsky is not just simply a far more clever, far more intelligent Moore, then I will keep an eye out for a book and put my theory to the test. I was, after all, practically judging a book by it's cover.

[Claverhouse]

Oh, I'm not a reader of Chomsky myself, just enough to realise he has a powerful mind. However I have other fields to plough...

My own criticism of him would be that he too adheres to the myth of Democracy: somehow, every intellectual believes in his heart that the solution lies in increasing the power of the common people.

Well, perhaps not Ludovici or Evola...




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

Someone asked me to read Chomsky once. I quickly noticed that the book was about the tainted democracy of the US. No one bothered to tell Chomsky that we are a representative republic, not a democracy. Suffering through book-long straw man arguments are not my cup of tea.

I'll check out the gist of the books.

What on earth is the distinction (other than semantic) between a democracy and a representative republic? In what sense is the US not a democracy (arguments aside about how effectively that democracy operates)?

Comparing Chomsky to Michael Moore is a bit like comparing Tolstoy to Frederick Forsyth. As far as I'm aware Moore hasn't made enduring contributions to the world of contemporary philosophy, abstract and applied linguistics and the philosophy of language.

[DevNull]

In what sense is the US not a democracy

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Our founding fathers planned carefully to deal with this all-too-common scenario.... much to the consternation of todays leftists. I am too young to remember a time that the righties were up in arms about not having
a true democracy, but the concept of "one man, one vote" is ridiculous.

To answer your question in current terms, democracy is one man one vote, and a representative republic is one mass of voters one vote on up the line somewhere depending on the situation.

Now I am no brain on these matters, but this whole discussion stems from the fact that Chomsky says our Democracy is tainted. AFAICT, it is tainted on purpose.


Comparing Chomsky to Michael Moore is a bit like comparing Tolstoy to Frederick Forsyth. As far as I'm aware Moore hasn't made enduring contributions to the world of contemporary philosophy, abstract and applied linguistics and the philosophy of language.

Moorism (408) Chomskyism (715) via Google.

I'll check into NC's contributions to applied linguistics and the philosophy of language. That sounds very pallatable.

[Shai Gar]

the effectiveness of the democracy.

a true democracy would be at a local level, which is what the current administration abhors. in america they democractically elect their leaders to choose a president. so it is a lot like the celtic or vatican way of electing a king/pope in that the cheif/cardinals do the choosing

[Shai Gar]

what contributions to linquistics? he REWROTE linquistics

but he and i disagree on how we view the english lexicon. i believe that it is very maleable and any lexeme from any other language can be added to it for example (capice, shampoo, dingy, boomerang and linquistic) whereas he believes that even though all languages borrow from each other the lexicons themselves are quite distinct (taken from emails to and from chomsky)